Legal Opinion

Schatzman v. Town of Greenfield

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1956PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The statute from which the city claims its right to be interpleaded is:

“260.19 Parties interpleaded. (1) When a complete determination of the controversy in court cannot be had without the presence of other parties, or when persons not parties have such interests in the subject matter of the controversy as require them to be parties for their protection, the court shall order them brought in; . . .”

The city submits that it has such an interest in the subject matter of the controversy that it must be made a party for its own protection; also that a complete determination of the controversy…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Popenfus v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. In re Incorporation of the Village of ChenequaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Ascherin v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Town of Kronenwetter v. KnoedlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. City of Madison v. Town of FitchburgWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Village of Brown Deer v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Town of Blooming Grove v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Town of Burke v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. White House Milk Co. v. ThomsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API